Because of course Clarke's played so wonderfully so far, hasn't he?...

well he has done ok actually..his innings the other day (despite being dropped on 21) was a real gem, that enabled Australia to really get into a winning position from a position of uncertainty...you could see he was ****ed off to have given a chance and after that he really buckled down and produced the goods..a great knock

In India in his first test, under a lot of pressure , he came in with Australia not in the best position and proceeded to win the man of the match award..two matches later, he scored 90 odd and 70 odd

Vs NZ, he came in with Australia 120-4 and scored a quick fire 140..

ok after that he had a bit of a rough trot, but if he continues to play for the next 10 years (which i am sure he will), those 6 or 7 tests will be seen as a mere blip.

he is obviously a very talented player..the selectors saw that in him,and decided to put him in the team..whats the problem

One thing this rings of is 'selection is a thankless job.' If players perform well, its the talent of the players and not anyc redit of the selectors.

On the other hand if a player performs poorly, the blame is put on selectors immediately.

how are the selectors doing such a brilliant job, when out of all the talent in australia they somehow manage to pick out bracken, williams, watson, hauritz and symonds?
how can a bunch of selectors who drop michael bevan from the ODI side be considered anything other than a bunch of idiots?
what would you say about the indian selectors if they decided to drop tendulkar from the ODI side after 2 bad series?

So again I reiterate, your perception can never be wrong, whatever is the scenario.

Well I wouldn't think what I think if I thought it was wrong, now, would I? Duur.
As far as I'm concerned selecting Clarke was wrong and I'm not changing my mind just because he happened to start well.